We are a part of reality and we perceive so perception is a part of reality.

I have frequently heard it contended that the truth isn't so easily defined, that every individual has his own particular view of reality. The suggestion is that in light of the fact that each of us sees the world through our own particular eyes, reality itself is distinct to each one of us.

The suggestion is that in light of the fact that each of us sees the world through our own particular eyes, reality itself changes from individual to individual.

While it's a fact that everybody sees reality in an unexpected way, reality does not care about our observations. Reality does not change to adjust to our perspectives; the truth is what it is. The truth is reality. The truth will be truth.

Reality, be that as it may, isn't generally a known, which is the place that an impression of reality comes in. While the truth is a settled factor in the condition of life, each view of the truth is a variable.

There is no competition between reality and perception, only between each individuals perception.

Yet another interesting enough introduction to an unspeakably complex subject.

While I fear it will sink into the quick sand of "blah ... blah ... blah" ... thought I would throw in some complementary thoughts ... aticulated eloquently by Ron Rheiser

Perspective is everything. When it’s lost, headaches and heartaches set in, take root and begin to dominate our lives.

When we lose perspective everything is reduced—the wide horizon, the depth of our minds, the compassion of our hearts, the enjoyment of our lives, and the consolation of our God. When perspective is lost, the world turns upside down; contentment gives way to restlessness, humility to ambition, and patience to a hopeless pursuit of a consummation, renown and immortality that this life can never give.

I know. It’s happened to me, countless times; in fact it happens to me most all of the time. In my life, forever it seems, I keep losing perspective and becoming obsessed with a love l cannot have, with hurts that I cannot let go of, and with an ambition that leaves me too preoccupied, too self-absorbed and too hurried to fully notice what’s around me.

Like most everyone else, I spend too many hours waiting for a special phone call that doesn’t come, for a special letter that doesn’t arrive, for a special glance of affection that isn’t given and for a special daydream to turn into reality. Like most everyone else who’s lost perspective, I spend too many hours stewing about hurts, replaying again and again the real and imagined rejections, insults and misunderstandings that have come my way, and dwelling on where I’ve been cheated, where life is unfair, and where others have been given what I don’t have.

Like most everyone else, I am driven, restless, ambitious and I live a pressured life, a life too hurried and demanding to be fully enjoyed. Like most everyone else, I dwell too much upon my own emotional, sexual, and moral loneliness and this preoccupation robs me of most of the simple, and deepest, joys of life.

And, like most everyone I know, for me, it won’t be easy to die, to let go, to return, with grace and gratitude, to the dust of earth, content enough with the astounding fact that I have lived, felt life, walked the earth, been loved, and have been and remain part of the Body of Christ.

But to have perspective, I must be praying, mystically feeling the other world, and content enough in my anonymity to take my place, but no more that, among others, as one small but integral member of the billions of men and women who have walked, and will walk the earth and will, one day, be presented by Christ to his Father. It is not easy to keep perspective and to claim no more, and no less, than my true place in history.

When my own prayer and mysticism is too weak for me to properly do this, one of the things I can still do is to stay in touch with those who have kept things in perspective. One of the persons who has helped me in this is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin—the French scientist-priest-mystic-philosopher who died on Easter Sunday in1955.

Like the rest of us, his life too had its share of hurts, ambitions, cold lonely seasons and obsessions. He spent most of his life unsure that anyone really understood him. But, and this is where he is rare, he invariably was able to put things into perspective, to regain the wide horizon and to see things, no matter how bad they appeared on the surface, as making sense in Christ.

Because of this, this perspective, he was a gifted man, gifted not just with extraordinary insight, but also with exceptional joy. He could see God in a stone. A chip of rock in the desert or an opera in Paris or New York, both held equal potential for delight. The simple pleasures of life, the elementary act of looking at the world and feeling its elements—the weather, the soil, the sun, the very dust—could give him a joy bordering on ecstasy.

It didn’t matter whether he was with his loved ones, at home in France, or away from his loved ones (and loved land), in exile in China, every kind of everyday experience could leave him feeling deeply grateful just for the fact of living, for the privilege of being part of what God is doing on this earth.

He could love deeply and he could also let go—and this letting go was what saved him from the always-present fear, ambition and loneliness that so often asphyxiates me. He was able to keep things in perspective and so he didn’t need to dwell on past hurts, on present loneliness and on future fears. Thus, for example:

At age 35, in 1916, he found himself in the front lines, as a stretcher-bearer, in the First World War. Before the battle to recapture Douaumont, fearing that he might be killed, he wrote the following: “I tell you this: I shall go into this engagement in a religious spirit, with all my soul, borne on by a single great impetus in which I am unable to distinguish where human emotions end and adoration begins. And if I am destined not to return from those heights I would like my body to remain there, molded into the clay of the fortifications, like a living cement thrown by God into the stone­work of the New City” (Hymns of the Universe, London, Fontana, 1970, p.51).

Humbling words, noble words, from a rare person with a rare faith. We all need to read and write words like this—and then, perhaps, we won’t live in restlessness and ambition, waiting for that special something that never comes.

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Interesting topic.just been thinking along these lines, and a good time to share those thoughts.

Initially we human beings are born with a supposed blank slate, the child's initial impressions set the stage for their reality, of their being in the world. This being is as concrete as the solidly described world in the objective world of early man, the child feels then thinks the world as a unique experience of reality, not infiltrated by the human objective of fragmenting life into descriptions of varied perception. In the beginning the world is your oyster, and you are you, with only the inherited traits of fear over loss of significant others who in turn define you.

Small children are in bondage to this fear of possible loss, which is nothing else but the fear of losing themselves, their reality. Perception of reality at this stage is identical with reality, and perception is not thought as being part of it.

This sense of uniqueness in the earliest times, can not yet conceive of a later time, when the thought some of it level off, -begins to come up, that perhaps this sense of losing the ones' self in others, has pre-existed even before our seemingly unique and rather dramatic entrance.

This sense begins to grow to larger perimeters with the nominal idea that what we learn beyond the clean slate, is the various fragments and aspects thought to us by others.

No, the gut level , almost satorik kind of sudden realization, that all of our reality has been eclipsed innumerable times on a plane of infinite spatial-temporal extension, and that the clean slate is not really blank, but contains the germ of everything which ever existed, with the brain, an organ as a filtering system to admit but what is relevant and at hand.

As maturation progresses, the social web of reality teaches this, but usually in the sense of getting along in life, and not in the sense of realizing the connective between reality and perception, as reality AS perception.

Reality is an assumption in the beginning, in order to be in the world, a basic assumption made, has to be made, of reality as a given-as is-, a thought echoed strangely enough in modernity: it is what it is.

Perhaps modernity has to remind itself that it could imprison reality into a relatively remote place,from which it can not recover, nor return to its home base.

This is why in most cases it is merely afforded to be a gut level feeling, or a Zen satori type of experience, to protect it unto far flung implications.

In this manner, of experience, perception changes the perspective, which changes perception, which again changes reality.

Some philosophers acute sense of this experience is well described. in Sartre's Nausea, the author wakes up from a slumber, only to find his hand appearing as if it was a strange, detached object.

With Kafka, a metamorphosis into bugs takes place. The usual perceptual rules of perceptual organization are suspended, and create another reality.

When finally maturity arrives. and an other exit appears in. it's ablation to Sartre's no exit sign, the door opens and reveals to be the very door through which it first came through, it is the same door leading into the same space.

View 1.Common sense infer there is a difference between the perceiver [perception] and the perceived. For example if a perceiver perceived an apple out there [reality] then in this case there is a gap [independence] between reality [apple] and perception [perceiver]. This common sense view to facilitate basic survival is comprising ultimate reality. Thus this is a very gross view of reality which is not an independent thing but rather an emergent.

View 2OTOH, with detailed analysis and reason, the individual and his perception are a part of reality, thus from this POV, the individual and his perception cannot be independent of the perceived reality. This is ultimately a more realistic view.

As long as we assert the above statements with qualifications, then there is no issue.The problem starts with the Philosophical Realists who insist Reality is absolutely independent of the perceiver of reality.

Wiki wrote:Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

The extreme of Philosophical Realism is when such an ideological view is extended to the existence of God, i.e. God exists as an absolutely perfect being and absolutely independent of the human conditions.Then such an independent God delivered his message and commands in holy texts via some prophet or messenger. As evident, these commands from such a God contain evil laden elements which inspired evil prone theists to commit terrible horrors, evils and violence up non-believers and even their own believers. (note very evident in Islam).

The more realistic view (2) is the 'perceived' God which is illusory arose as a part of reality in which the perceiver[believer] is a part of and thereof his/her 'perception' is driven by psychological impulses. Dealing with such psychological impulses will enable theists to judge their own perceptions as part of reality and God is not an independent being issue commands from afar. Such an understanding will prevent and reduce the quantum of theistic-based evils and violence.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

You're lying on a well populated yet not crowded public beach ... basking in the sun ... enjoying the serenity of the moment.

Suddenly ... unexpectedly... sister bowels knocks on the door of your conscious mind ... you have a pretty good idea of the message sister bowels is trying to deliver.

You don't know of any public washrooms in the vicinity ... and no tree cover in sight.

What do you do?

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

It is so critical to figure out how to separate between a truth and a sentiment. The most noteworthy part of a truth is that it can neither be made nor adjusted. In this way, a truth is the pith of reality. It is the thing that it is, and it's dependent upon us to find it.

The issue emerges when individuals decline to acknowledge the truth that standards must be found, and rather trust they can make their own particular standards. Which implies they trust they can make their own particular reality, and that is a conviction that can prompt deplorable outcomes.

View 1.Common sense infer there is a difference between the perceiver [perception] and the perceived.

It is not "common sense". It is language and concept definitions.

Prismatic567 wrote:For example if a perceiver perceived an apple out there [reality] then in this case there is a gap [independence] between reality [apple] and perception [perceiver].

It is not an "independence", but a separation.

Prismatic567 wrote:View 2OTOH, with detailed analysis and reason, the individual and his perception are a part of reality, thus from this POV, the individual and his perception cannot be independent of the perceived reality. This is ultimately a more realistic view.

There is no difference between your (1) and your (2).

I have to guess that you were shooting for the distinction between those who have yet to learn that their perception can be affected and thus yield a more skewed view of reality and those who understand that their senses can be tricked.

Prismatic567 wrote:The extreme of Philosophical Realism is when such an ideological view is extended to the existence of God

This topic has nothing at all to do with the existence of God one way or another.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Reality does not change to adjust to our perspectives; the truth is what it is. The truth is reality. The truth will be truth.

"Reality" is what is. "Truth" is what people say about reality. Since there are many people there are many truths. Some truths reflect what is and some are mistakes. Therefore what is accepted as "consensus about truth" changes. The consensus about truth may itself be a mistake.

The problem with truth is that it is difficult to determine if it is a correct statement about reality, if it is a mistake or if it is a lie intended to deceive.

Agreed. Truth is the accurate statements about reality (although also a part of reality).

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Arrogance creates mental blocks and myopia ... the truth of this statement is abundantly self evident in this forum.

For people like myself ... who stand on the lowest rung ... when falling off ... the sting of humiliation doesn't hurt ... much.

OTH ... for people who stand on self made pedestals ... falling off ... even the threat of falling off ... the sting of humiliation ... is known to have been fatal.

Language and cultural indoctrination are not prerequisites for perception.

During my 12+ years in China I have often encountered ... came face to face ... ergo ... made eye contact ... nothing more ... with toddlers and very young children. Their reactions fall into 2 categories:

a) Their face lites up with a warm and friendly smile.

b) They issue a blood curdling scream or at least they cower in fear behind the safety of their guardian.

Encounters(eye contact) with adults generally triggered a face showing ... contempt, timidity, fear, arrogance and so on ... I represent the "goyim" to these people ... manifestation of the mature fruit of cultural indoctrination. Not all encounters though ... from time to time I even receive an unsolicited friendly greeting.

On occasion ... while helping young Chinese adults improve their English language skills ... I would engage in friendly arguments ... the arguments no doubt stemming from our mutual reluctance to surrender our individual cultural indoctrination.

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

View 1.Common sense infer there is a difference between the perceiver [perception] and the perceived.

It is not "common sense". It is language and concept definitions.

I used 'common sense' as the lowest denominator. In this sense, it is obvious the perception of an apple in mind is not the apple on the table. This scenario can be further analyzed within scientific and various philosophical perspectives.What is critical is we need to be aware of all possible perspectives to the OP.

Prismatic567 wrote:For example if a perceiver perceived an apple out there [reality] then in this case there is a gap [independence] between reality [apple] and perception [perceiver].

It is not an "independence", but a separation.

The common term used for such related philosophical issue is "independent" e.g.

Realism (in philosophy) about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

"separation" is too vague.

Prismatic567 wrote:View 2OTOH, with detailed analysis and reason, the individual and his perception are a part of reality, thus from this POV, the individual and his perception cannot be independent of the perceived reality. This is ultimately a more realistic view.

There is no difference between your (1) and your (2).

I have to guess that you were shooting for the distinction between those who have yet to learn that their perception can be affected and thus yield a more skewed view of reality and those who understand that their senses can be tricked.

Nope.It is in the sense, 'what is reality' is co-created by the perceiver and the perceived.There is no independent reality out there waiting to be perceived.What is reality [cognition] is an emergence not something that is pre-existing.

Prismatic567 wrote:The extreme of Philosophical Realism is when such an ideological view is extended to the existence of God

This topic has nothing at all to do with the existence of God one way or another.

What authority do you have to say otherwise.For the Abrahamic theists at least, God is taken to be the Reality underlying all realities, thus 'Reality vs Perception' is also 'God versus Perception'. To most theists, what is God as perceived [experienced] is not the "real" God out there, which contradict with omnipresence thus GIGO.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote:For the Abrahamic theists at least, God is taken to be the Reality underlying all realities, thus 'Reality vs Perception' is also 'God versus Perception'. To most theists, what is God as perceived [experienced] is not the "real" God out there, which contradict with omnipresence thus GIGO.

So now you change your story. In your attempt to disprove God, you claimed that God was defined as "absolutely perfect" and therefore could not exist. But now, you admit that God is defined as "the Reality underlying all realities". How are you going to proclaim that one as "impossible"? It seems that one would be necessarily existent.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Arrogance creates mental blocks and myopia ... the truth of this statement is abundantly self evident in this forum.

You have expressed this sentiment more than once. I respect your right to think like this, but remember, it is still opinion.

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:For people like myself ... who stand on the lowest rung ... when falling off ... the sting of humiliation doesn't hurt ... much.

OTH ... for people who stand on self made pedestals ... falling off ... even the threat of falling off ... the sting of humiliation ... is known to have been fatal.

Who are these people standing on self made pedestals? Do you mean fatal as in they die or it affects them psychologically?

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:Language and cultural indoctrination are not prerequisites for perception.

Who said that language and cultural indoctrination were prerequisite to perception?

There are an unbounded number of characteristic laws to be found, be that as it may, luckily, you don't need to have a point by point comprehension of each one of them to accomplish your objectives. In any case, there is one law which should be absolutely recognizable and which you should unfailingly use as a guide for your activities.

The law I am alluding to is a definitive, unchanging law of the universe, the establishment of reality itself: Actions have results. In spite of the fact that I trust a large portion of us mentally comprehend the innate truth of this guideline, firsthand perception has persuaded me that not very many individuals give it more than a passing consideration in their every day lives.

For what reason would individuals disregard such an almighty, changeless guideline?

I don't really give a damn whether you "follow or not" ... I simply scatter seeds ... the germination of such seeds is beyond my purview.

Seems the difference between me and many of the frequent posters in this forum is that I have no substantial investment in my opinions.

I'm content to float on the surface of the ocean as the tide ebbs and flows ... crashing on the shores of human consciousness.

"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:I don't really give a damn whether you "follow or not" ... I simply scatter seeds ... the germination of such seeds is beyond my purview. Seems the difference between me and many of the frequent posters in this forum is that I have no substantial investment in my opinions. I'm content to float on the surface of the ocean as the tide ebbs and flows ... crashing on the shores of human consciousness.

I found your post very stimulating and it brought a number of thoughts into my mind. Hopefully my reflection provides some value in return.

Meno_ wrote:Initially we human beings are born with a supposed blank slate, the child's initial impressions set the stage for their reality, of their being in the world. This being is as concrete as the solidly described world in the objective world of early man, the child feels then thinks the world as a unique experience of reality, not infiltrated by the human objective of fragmenting life into descriptions of varied perception. In the beginning the world is your oyster, and you are you, with only the inherited traits of fear over loss of significant others who in turn define you.

By setting the stage for our reality at such an early age it makes sense that our impressions would lead us astray fairly quickly. As you say "perception of reality at this stage is identical with reality, and perception is not thought as being part of it" and this makes me think that because reality is not letting us down for enough time to form a trust or belief in reality that we begin to take it for granted and further presume that reality is never going to let us down. The first time something unexpected happens we begin to have our reality corrupted because we can no longer believe reality entirely so we use our own faculties to form a newer version of reality.

Furthermore since truth can regularly be unforgiving, and, as individuals, we normally incline toward not so much torment but rather more joy, we essentially don't care for our little self-deceptive universes to be resentful about such an inconsequential issue as truth. We don't stress over the outcomes we may need to manage tomorrow; we simply need to feel great today. In any case, we just prevail with regards to deceiving ourselves when we participate in such shallow considering. Actually one must will to encounter the inconvenience regularly connected with truth if his goal is to accomplish positive, long haul outcomes.

Meno_ wrote:No, the gut level , almost satorik kind of sudden realization, that all of our reality has been eclipsed innumerable times on a plane of infinite spatial-temporal extension, and that the clean slate is not really blank, but contains the germ of everything which ever existed, with the brain, an organ as a filtering system to admit but what is relevant and at hand.

I really like your usage of the idea that the brain is a filtering system - Another significant deterrent to a precise impression of the truth is the thing that I get a kick out of the chance to allude to as pattern confinement. In a sense the brains ability to filter is restricted to learnt patterns.

We are altogether restricted not exclusively to the planet on which we live, at the same time, allegorically, we dwell inside our own particular mental universes. It is hard to fathom thoughts and conditions we are not familiar with hearing and seeing inside the imperceptible parameters that encompass our lives. Along these lines, one of the reasons for our varying impression of truth is that we as a whole begin from our own arrangement of suspicions. This is absolutely the motivation behind why the genuine searcher of truth must figure out how to address everything and surrender appreciated thoughts, regardless of whether it implies enduring distress.

To become ones own liberator from pattern confinement requires a receptive outlook. This requires dismissal of custom and convention as a premise of certainty, and, in its place, acknowledgment of rationale and reason. To get destined for success in life requires that you figure out how to accurately see reality and have the strength to acknowledge it.

Meno_ wrote:Reality is an assumption in the beginning, in order to be in the world, a basic assumption made, has to be made, of reality as a given-as is-, a thought echoed strangely enough in modernity: it is what it is.

Interestingly this reminds me of a construct that I have in AI called an inceptron. An inceptron takes with it an impression of said reality, relying on no proof and afterwards the resultant is questioned as knowns(another construct) are built - being equal in theory to the assumption you mention. Just a side note.

Meno_ wrote:Perhaps modernity has to remind itself that it could imprison reality into a relatively remote place,from which it can not recover, nor return to its home base.

I could not have said it better myself Meno_

You have made an interesting topic even more interesting, thank you for that.

Can an extension be made from the previous , which affirms the idea of some basis for both: Eddingon' s and Einstein's ideal construction for the reality of a Central Intelligence, the contemporainity of which attests to the very brief timescale of limited perception of, individual reality?

In other words, the doorways through both: the beginning and end appear to pose as those identical/logical formal arrangements, through which, the incessant proclivity of repeated near identical-but-more similar repetitions process?

Again in other words, the identifiers or signals betwixt reality and perception, form paradigms of reference, perhaps ultimately to serve as some kind of guarantee for the imminent Progression to repeated transcendence?

I am not taking this opportunity to derail this forum, only to seek possible logical underpinnings which may buttress the above Men's possible basis for furthering their ideas.

If You may see no merit in this extension may not mean Your dissent, only a quiet restraint for so bold an assertion.

When I first entered ILP, I came in a naive realist. Assuming I will be given hearing on my claim that I had a dream of Polanyi, and that hearing was responded to critically.and unfavorably. However, his 'Tacit Knowledge' gives confirmation, rather then disqualification to this underlying sense of subconscious manifestation of primordial artifacts of reality.

I may well be not on the same wavelength with this line of thought but I am certain I present an interesting journey in my answer so let us proceed. Please correct me where I am wrong and inquire to what may not make sense. I like to attempt an answer to most things so here goes.

Can an extension be made from the previous , which affirms the idea of some basis for both: Eddington's and Einstein's ideal construction for the reality of a Central Intelligence, the contemporaneity of which attests to the very brief timescale of limited perception of, individual reality?

I would have to examine Eddington's and Einstein's construction to give a definitive answer but from the brief account of what I have read I would have to say that it is a possibility. I assume your are talking about creation by an intelligent being and I am led to believe that Einstein's intelligent being theory is a little different to what Eddington thought in that Eddington believes the material of the universe is intelligence or "mind stuff" and both Eddington and Einstein converge at the point of the inter-connectivity of everything in the universe as an invisible field that holds all of reality together.

I am guessing we are talking about a universal intelligence. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Assuming that I am somewhat close to the mark then I have to ask whether we are talking about perception transcending reality or reality transcending perception. I can see how perception transcends reality but to transcend perception we then need to make connection with the repetitive universe. Perception transcends reality in that it can jump connective points and connect two distant percepts whereas reality has to be connected to what is in between the two distant points of reference(analogous to the percepts) or so it would seem - I would suggest that our perceptive reality is consciously broken but subconsciously connected.

I can even see a connection to the flawed reasoning of the quantum physicists believe it or not with the pairing of particles >> a communication of sorts.

I will leave this response here for now to get your feedback, just in case my course needs to be corrected.

The idea of universal intelligence hinges on apparently on what such intelligence may comprise of. Einstein waited until Eddington 'proved' his general theory of relativity. I am going this route to show with extremely bold brushstrokes how the sub conscious states interact with those becoming conscious.

If, theory-Einstein-, can be made analogous to the proof-Eddington, then in a sense, primarily it is based on the covered part of a continuum of intelligent activity , wether it be continuous or fragmented; vis. between ' Reality based, repetitive process instentiating a codified reflective memory, or merely perceptive connections of newly formed -what Russell names 'sense-data. If the continuum predicates then it appears the- what You term -sub conscious- then this is posited as 'IT' were some kind of bank of information, from which arises the hypothetical , which has existed all along as some kind of central depository , guaranteed by repetition and varience.

But is such a guarantee of a fact or a model , which is necessary to uphold some kind of assurance of a primordial universal intelligence? Or is it merely an attempt to reduce, rather than infer a discomfort and even fear over the instability of an indeterminate world?

Can molecular intelligence be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment?

On closer thought, in answer to Russel's paradoxical non resolved quarry of non-sense data, Wittgenstein answered correctly, that its a non-puzzle because the analogy between sense and data is not based on a primary, necessary logic, its an extrapolation of forming identity from similitude.

This works for me on the level of demoting the fear of the popularized version of the implications of quantum effects.

I think repetition can be inferred by another pair of early explorers - Boltzmann and Maxwell, - who based early studies on patterns of distribution. Things are acting and reacting because of basic probable distribution patterns, which are given. That 'givenness' can serve as a constant and predictable way, in which repetitions of those patterns are/become part of the active reactive process between them.

This is the phase, if it can be called that, where analogy breaks down to mirror, or reflect the constant recurrence of similar states , infinitely setting the perceptive, transcendency into an imminence of a hidden 'reality' as identifiably unique, in the sense of breaking IT(reality) up into sub types.types and paradigms.

What is of the essence here. literally, is that indeterminacy creates its own structural transcendence in the production of hierarchies of analogy, the genesis of which can be traced back to the ancient representation of innumerable turtles lying on other turtles' backs, or the reflective effect of ever diminishing mirrors reflecting a non existent depth. I think Narcissus began to realize the 'actuality of his depth' when he began to see himself reflected in the mirror, rather seeing the other.

That this transcendence is one based on the fear that maybe sense-data may really be a construct of convenience to sustain the idea of monadology, or universal expectation for a causal explanation , as Descartes , and others tried, ; turns out ironically to be an unnecessary project

Hundreds of years of construction of this lead to deconstruction, on basis of Wittgenstein's brilliant shot from the idea of appearance of similitude, or resemblance as the fulcrum around which derivation and identification built insecurity and fear;, where if, such were to be understood in relation to , for example effects of warping space time-as Eddington did to Einstein's hypothesis implies, -then, imminence as an ultimate state could be understood.

That state, is the ether into which we,the tiny bubble, is temporarily injected, and made to develop the multiple realities by transcending the per ceivi ing.

Reality becomes the necessary illusion by which various forms of existence become intelligible and this illusion is the highest form of being.

In this sense, we can't ever sense the data whereby our coming to be and ceasing to be would not turn on this necessary part of understanding.

Meno_ wrote:Can molecular intelligence be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment?

No. Young's Double-Slit Experiment is no longer a mystery for some of us.

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic HarmonyElseFrom THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is"..

Meno_ wrote:Can molecular intelligence be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment?

No. Young's Double-Slit Experiment is no longer a mystery for some of us.

Thanks for that, but further the point of re-defining intelligence in terms of affectance, not limited to basic organic material still has relevance in progress and planned studies in cybernetics ? The implantation of intelligence microchips is in the works, where the aim not only restri ts the development of higher artificial intelligence, but a fusing with existing human intelligence, as well.